Accused State

The accused contends

that the DNA samples
Premise obtained were not from The claim is untenable.
Section 12 of Art. III of the
him and they were
Constitution provides in
obtained by means of pertinent parts:
force.
(1) Any person under
investigation for the
commission of an
offense shall have
the right to be
informed of his right
to remain silent and
to have competent
and independent
counsel, preferably
of his own choice.

Dr. Buan found that The court reiterated

there were bloodstains that even though DNA
Conclusion in Vallejo’s clothing – evidence is merely
Blood Type A, similar to circumstantial, it can
that of the victim, while still convict the accused
Vallejo’s Blood Type is considering that it
O. corroborates all other
circumstantial evidence
gathered in this rape –
slay case.

People vs. Vallejo

Issue:
W/O the DNA samples obtained from Vallejo’s clothes and those of
the victim are admissible as evidence?
 Herrera vs. Alba

Accused State
Premise Petitioner opposed DNA Respondent filed a
paternity testing and motion to direct the
contended that it has taking of DNA paternity
not gained testing to abbreviate
acceptability. the proceedings.
Conclusion DNA Testing does not Section 17, Article 3
violate the accused’s of the 1987
right against self – Constitution provides
incrimination. that “no person shall be
compelled to be a
witness against
himself.” This privilege
is applicable only to
testimonial evidence.

Issue: Whether or not DNA testing violates the right against self-
incrimination?
 Estrada vs. Desierto

Accused State
Premise Estrada filed with the Some Congressmen
Supreme Court a moved to impeach
petition for prohibition Estrada which caused
which sought to enjoin several sectors.
the Ombudsman from
conducting any further
proceedings in cases
filed against him, not
until his term as
president ends.
Conclusion The petitioner invoked The Court held that the
that this case involves cases at bar do not
a political question. involve a political
question and therefore
falls within the ambit of
judicial scrutiny pursuant
to the doctrine of
separation of powers of
coordinate branches of
government.

ISSUE: W/O the case involve a political question?